Suchergebnisse

Прихвативши понуду краља Александра Обреновића да образује владу Србије, Стојан Новаковић је, јула 1895. године, планирао да се посвети побољшању међународног положаја Србије и положаја српског народа у Старој Србији и Македонији. Рачунајући на помоћ Русије и на тешкоће које је Турска имала у решавањима јерменског и критског питања, Новаковић је настојао да од Порте изнуди просветне и верске привилегије за Србе у Старој Србији и Македонији. Немогућност бржег решавања финансијских и уставних питања, нестабилна политичка ситуација у Краљевини и аустроугарски утицаји довели су до пада Новаковићеве владе крајем 1896. године. Свака из угла својих интереса, Француска и Велика Британија пажљиво су пратиле и анализирале ситуацију у Србији и Новаковићев рад. ; Stojan Novaković's government (July 1895 – December 1896) faced numerous inherited problems. As a scholar, a diplomat and a politician, a man led by moral and scientific principles and national interests, Stojan Novaković was aware that he was taking reigns of a country which was not politically, economically nor militarily ready to make major stopes towards national liberation and unification. That is why he was resorting to negotiations in situation where he knew there would be no major achievements. He was resisting much more when he knew it made sense, and in situations in which he could not swallow national pride and ignore facts. British and, especially, French envoys to Belgrade knew that the reason for instability of Novaković's government was not in his undisputed political and intellectual capacities, but in international circumstances, internal political struggles, and in unpredictable characters of former King Milan and his son Aleksandar. Britain, who was protecting its interests from Russia in the Easter Mediterranean by supporting Austria-Hungary, and France who, in cooperation with Russia, tried to prevent major conflicts in the Balkans, did not take an active role in directing the policy of Kingdom of Serbia. London, with its sometimes harsh warnings, and Paris, with its advices, were managing to draw Belgrade's attention to the fact that, in spite of Armenian and Cretan question, and in spite of Albanian atrocities in Old Serbia and Macedonia, Serbia should not take any aggressive measures. ; Научни скупови / Српска академија наука и уметности ; књ. 172. Председништво ; књ. 11

Visoko obrazovanje u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama je po većini kvantita¬tivnih i kvalitativnih pokazatelja najbolje na svetu. Univerziteti u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, zajedno sa onima u Ujedinjenom Kraljevstvu, privlače najbolje studente ne samo iz Evrope već širom sveta uključujući najmnogoljudnije zemlje i rastuće ekonomije poput Kine, Indije, Brazila ili Indonezije. Istovremeno, priznati profesori i istraživači mahom rade u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, imajući u vidu sjajne uslove za rad i istraživanja. Međutim, snaga američkih univerziteta je istovremeno i njihova slabost u kontekstu COVID-19 epidemije. Većina univerziteta su privatni univerziteti koji u potpunosti zavise od tržišta, donacija, a ponajviše studentskih školarina. Epidemija je zaoštrila problem marketizacije obrazovanja u SAD imajući u vidu da većina studenata preispituje nastavak školovanja u novonastalim uslovima, ekonomske neizvesnosti koju epidemija donosi, kao i nesigurnog tržišta rada. Analizirajući studiju slučaja Nortvestern univerziteta, tekst se bavi ekonomskim i društvenim posledicama koje epidemija ima na visoko obrazovanje u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, kao i mogućim načinima njegovog prevladavanja.‎ ; Higher education in the United States is the best in the world according to most quantitative and qualitative indicators. Universities in the United States, along with those in the United Kingdom, attract the best students not only from Europe but around the world, including the most populous countries and growing economies such as China, India, Brazil or Indonesia. At the same time, renowned professors and researchers mostly work in the United States, given the excellent working and research conditions. However, the strength of American universities is, at the same time, their weakness in the context of the COVID-19 epidemic. Most universities are private universities that depend entirely on the market, donations, and mostly student tuition. The epidemic has exacerbated the problem of marketing education in the United States, bearing in mind that most students are reconsidering the continuation of schooling due to economic uncertainty that the epidemic brings and uncertain labour market. Focusing on the case study of Northwestern University, the text is analyzing the economic and social consequences of the epidemic on higher education in the United States, as well as possible ways to overcome it.

Higher education in the United States is the best in the world according to most quantitative and qualitative indicators. Universities in the United States, along with those in the United Kingdom, attract the best students not only from Europe but around the world including the most populous countries and growing economies such as China, India, Brazil or Indonesia. At the same time, renowned professors and researchers mostly work in the United States, given the excellent working and research conditions. However, the strength of American universities is, at the same time, their weakness in the context of the COVID-19 epidemic. Most universities are private universities that depend entirely on the market, donations, and mostly student tuition. The epidemic has exacerbated the problem of marketing education in the United States, bearing in mind that most students are reconsidering the continuation of schooling due to economic uncertainty that the epidemic brings and uncertain labour market. Focusing on the case study of Northwestern University, the text is analyzing the economic and social consequences of the epidemic on higher education in the United States, as well as possible ways to overcome it. ; Visoko obrazovanje u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama je po većini kvantitativnih i kvalitativnih pokazatelja najbolje na svetu. Univerziteti u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, zajedno sa onima u Ujedinjenom Kraljevstvu, privlače najbolje studente ne samo iz Evrope već širom sveta uključujući najmnogoljudnije zemlje i rastuće ekonomije poput Kine, Indije, Brazila ili Indonezije. Istovremeno, priznati profesori i istraživači mahom rade u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, imajući u vidu sjajne uslove za rad i istraživanja. Međutim, snaga američkih univerziteta je istovremeno i njihova slabost u kontekstu COVID-19 epidemije. Većina univerziteta su privatni univerziteti koji u potpunosti zavise od tržišta, donacija, a ponajviše studentskih školarina. Epidemija je zaoštrila problem marketizacije obrazovanja u SAD imajući u vidu da većina studenata preispituje nastavak školovanja u novonastalim uslovima, ekonomske neizvesnosti koju epidemija donosi kao i nesigurnog tržišta rada. Analizirajući studiju slučaja Nortvestern univerziteta, tekst se bavi ekonomskim i društvenim posledicama koje epidemija ima na visoko obrazovanje u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, kao i mogućim načinima njegovog prevladavanja.

The relations with Russia rank among the most important and most complex issues in the US and UK foreign policy. The years after the Second World War have been marked by an exhausting arms race between the Western and Eastern bloc that ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the break-up of the Soviet Union and the victory of the United States and its Western allies. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the relations between the US and the United Kingdom on the one hand, and Russia, on the other, during the mandate of President Trump and after Brexit and point to possible directions that these relations may take in the aftermath of Biden's victory in the 2020 US Presidential elections. The author proceeds from a hypothesis that the efforts of President Trump, who, contrary to his predecessors, felt that the relations with Russia should be based on interests rather than ideology, have failed. He has not been successful primarily due to the huge resistance mounted by the state structures, mainstream media and anti-Russian coalition forged by the Republican and Democratic parties. The relations between the UK and Russia remain cold after Brexit as well due to the severe problems between the two countries. The first part will deal with the strained relations between the United States and Russia following the West's victory in the Cold War, the efforts of President Trump to improve these relations and his failure to do so. The second part of the paper will address the relationship between the United Kingdom and Russia, which is in many respects even more complicated than that between Russia and the US. After Brexit, the relations between the two countries continue to be plagued by the activities of the Russian agents in Great Britain, the crisis in Ukraine and different views on the war in Syria. In the third part, the concluding part of the paper, the author tried to answer the question of how the relations between the US and Russia will develop after Joseph Biden won the 2020 US Presidential elections. According to him, the new President will continue to pursue the traditional policy towards Russia agreed upon by both US parties. It can be expected that Biden will, despite the policy of sanctions pursued by his predecessors, Obama and Trump, engage more in supporting the opposition and civilian sector in Russia. Given the cold and strained relations between these two states, it may be assumed that Great Britain will readily follow a new, tougher course of action pursued by President Biden towards Russia and Putin. It is especially important for UK politics that Biden returns to the ideas of liberalism because, as we have seen on previous pages, in London, in addition to the actions of Russian agents on the UK territory, Putin is most resented precisely for his activities to overthrow the ruling liberal order. Despite the good ties between Prime Minister Johnson and the former US President who supported Brexit, Biden's victory will bring relief to the UK because of his commitment, as opposed to Trump, to bring back America to the world political stage, where London is likely to expect to find space for its new global role after leaving the EU. On the other hand, Moscow will probably continue with its past foreign policy strategy in anticipation of the moves to be taken by the new US President without high expectations regarding the future relations between the two countries. Russia has even fewer expectations when it comes to relations with the UK, given the gravity of the problems that burden the relations between the two countries.

Branimir Altgayer was the most prominent Croatian of German nationality in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but he was especially so during the period of the Independent State of Croatia. Altgayer was born December 8, 1897 in the town of Przekopane (Galicia), where his father (born in Osijek) served as an Austro-Hungarian cavalry lieutenant. Altgayer spent his childhood in Slavonia, where he was brought up in a Croatian cultural atmosphere. After completing Croatian public school in Kutjevo and Croatian Gymnasium in Osijek and Zemun, he attended an Austro-Hungarian cavalry cadet school in Moravia between 1912 and 1915. He was an officer (ensign) in the Austro-Hungarian army (after 1915) until the end of the first world war, serving on the Russian, Rumanian, and Italian fronts. He was wounded twice and decorated several times. In the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes he was a cavalry captain (first class) of the Royal army. Following four years of service, he resigned. He worked at various civilian occupations for a time, but returned to the military between 1924 and 1927. He was very active in the cultural and political life of the German minority of Osijek and Slavonia. He was selected to the united council of the German minority association, the Kulturbund of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (Schwäbisch-Deutscher Kulturbund), in December 1934. He was a prominent representative of the so-called Renewal movement (Erneuerungsbewegung), a radical current in the Kulturbund. Following a conflict between the old leaders of the Germans in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Renewalists which occasioned a split in the Kulturbund, Altgayer and the Renewalists are ejected from the Kulturbund for insubordination. At the beginning of 1936 he established a cultural and charitable organization for Germans of Slavonia in Osijek (Kultur-und Wohlfahrtsvereinigung der Deutschen in Slavonien). In January, 1939, he became a regional leader (Gauobmann) of the Germans in Slavonia (following the re-admittance of the Renewalists to the Kulturbund at the end of 1938). In early 1939, he leaves the Yugoslavian Radical Union, whose city councilor he was in Osijek, and joins the Croatian peasant party. After the creation of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) in 1941, he was named leader of the German National Assembly for the NDH (Volksgruppenführer). From December 1941 he was director of state for the presidency of the NDH, but after January 1943 he was secretary of state for the same, and he was likewise promoted to the rank of reserve colonel in the Ustasha army. He was decorated by Leader of the Ustasha Dr. Ante Pavelic with the title "knight". For a short time in mid-1943 he went to the Eastern Front. At the end of the second world war he was deported to Yugoslavia from Austria by the British. In 1950, the district court of Zagreb sentenced him to death by firing squad. The sentence was carried out May 15, 1950. The investigative material of the Office of State Security (UDB-a) concerning Altgayer, especially the transcript of the trial from 1949, is an excellent source of information about the German minority in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia during the thirties and during the period of the Independent State of Croatia. (SOI : CSP: S. 638)

The "May Declaration" of the Yugoslav Club (Vienna, 1917), regardless of its original intent, enabled various political parties and groups in the South Slav areas of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy to promote the "Yugoslav idea" and work toward the creation of a unified Yugoslav state. In Croatia, as well as in Bosnia and Hercegovina, the most vociferous advocates of the "May Declaration" were members of the Croatian Catholic Seniorate, the leading organization within the Croatian Catholic movement. In Bosnia and Hercegovina, the Franciscans were the leading proponents of the "May Declaration" alongside the Seniorate. The greatest opposition to the "May Declaration" was voiced by the "Frankist-Rightist" circle centered around Archbishop Josip Stadler. Especially prominent among this group was Ivo Pilar, author of the "Memorandum" (July 1917), wherein he called for the creation of a "united administrative territory," or, the political unification of Croatian lands elevated to the status of a "condominium" relative to both component halves of the Monarchy. In his "Declaration" (November, 1917), Archbishop Stadler and his supporters came out in favour of the unification of "Croatian historical lands" within the boundaries of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, but on the basis of a subdualistic formula. Considering the existence of the dualistic system in the Monarchy a historic reality, they believed that this was the best possible resolution of the problem of political/constitutional fragmentation of the Croatian lands. The dissolution of Austria-Hungary and the formation of the Kingdom of Serbs , Croats and Slovenes rendered irrelevant the demands voiced in Stadler's "Declaration". Symbolically, the death of the Archbishop occurred at precisely the same time as these ominous events befell the Croat people. (SOI : CSP: S. 71f.)